↓ Skip to main content

New Therapeutic Strategies in Acute Lymphocytic Leukemia

Overview of attention for article published in Current Hematologic Malignancy Reports, March 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
12 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
65 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
New Therapeutic Strategies in Acute Lymphocytic Leukemia
Published in
Current Hematologic Malignancy Reports, March 2017
DOI 10.1007/s11899-017-0380-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Louise M. Man, Amy L. Morris, Michael Keng

Abstract

Most drugs used in standard regimens for acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) were developed more than 30 years ago. Since that time, several new drugs have been developed and incorporated into ALL treatment. In spite of this, novel therapeutic approaches are still needed to improve outcomes for high-risk or relapsed ALL. This manuscript discusses newer treatment strategies, including purine nucleoside analogs, monoclonal antibodies, antibody drug conjugates, mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) inhibitors, proteasome inhibitors, histone deacetylase (HDAC) inhibitors, hypomethylating agents, spleen tyrosine kinase inhibitors, Bruton's tyrosine kinase (BTK) inhibitors, Janus kinase-signal transducer and activator of transcription (JAK-STAT) inhibitors, anti-programmed cell death protein (anti-PD-1) antibodies, mitogen-activated protein kinase (MEK) inhibitors, CXCR4 antagonists, poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors, and FMS-like tyrosine kinase 3 (FLT3) inhibitors. Additionally, this manuscript discusses the impact of diagnostic approaches on management of ALL. Specifically, minimal residual disease is increasingly felt to be important and will likely dramatically impact the care of ALL patients in the near future.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 65 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 2%
Unknown 64 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 12 18%
Researcher 11 17%
Other 8 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 12%
Student > Bachelor 7 11%
Other 11 17%
Unknown 8 12%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 24 37%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 16 25%
Immunology and Microbiology 6 9%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 3%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 2%
Other 3 5%
Unknown 13 20%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 10 April 2017.
All research outputs
#7,460,532
of 9,665,907 outputs
Outputs from Current Hematologic Malignancy Reports
#140
of 195 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#189,244
of 262,848 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Current Hematologic Malignancy Reports
#11
of 13 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 9,665,907 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 195 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.2. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 262,848 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 13 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.